RE: [GTh] Two Blog Postings
There may be other ways to keep abreast of biblioblogs in which one
is interested, but the method I like best is to subscribe to them. This
allows the receipt of complete postings through email, so that (1) I don't
have to go anywhere or do anything to check on them, and (2) I get the
whole posting, not just a snippet.
[Judy:] I like this method, too. It’s a pity that not all blogging software seems to allow it.
Anyway, two of the above three have postings today, and I find both of
them interesting. Judy is reviewing Simon Gathercole's new book, and
today's installment is on SG's argument for Greek origin of Gos.Thom,
with Judy presenting some good counter-arguments. The only thought
that I have on the matter is that the prologue of Coptic Thomas uses the
Syriac form of the name of Thomas, i.e., 'Didymos Judas Thomas',
versus the Greek form 'Judas Thomas' in the P.Oxy. fragments. This fact,
however, doesn't necessarily lead to any conclusion except the limited one
that the Coptic designers were familiar with the Syriac form of the name.
It doesn't mean, for example, that there was a Syriac version of Thomas.
[Judy:] I haven’t read the arguments that the proponents for a Syriac or Aramaic version make recently, so they are not at the front of my mind. I plan to look at them once I’ve finished reading the book. I suspect that Simon doesn’t work his way through them all systematically, just those he wants to counter. The use of Didymos certainly says something about the milieu in which Coptic Thomas was composed.
A general comment about the book for those contemplating buying it: Gathercole assumes that his readers will have a reasonable working knowledge not just of Greek and Coptic but also of French and German. You can usually work out the gist of the material that he reproduces from his comments about it, but there are quite a number of passages of French and German that extend to several sentences which he doesn’t translate. There are several of these in each chapter and also (so far) one section in Italian. It is clearly aimed at the serious biblical scholar rather than the more generally well read, interested ‘lay’ person – the cost suggests this as well, of course. If you don’t read French and German, you would need to decide how well you tolerate this.